> A separate market on the lab leak hypothesis itself shifted less, from about 70% to 60%. This could either be because bettors thought Peter was a great debater but wasn’t actually right, or because most people in this (very large) market didn’t even watch the debate. In general I’m not optimistic about markets with no plausible way of ever being resolved.
ACX also dissected the debate: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim
His footnote about the general opinion:
> A separate market on the lab leak hypothesis itself shifted less, from about 70% to 60%. This could either be because bettors thought Peter was a great debater but wasn’t actually right, or because most people in this (very large) market didn’t even watch the debate. In general I’m not optimistic about markets with no plausible way of ever being resolved.
A Survey of 50+ Good Judgment’s Superforecasters https://goodjudgment.substack.com/p/superforecasting-the-origins-of-the
> 74% likely to have been caused by natural zoonosis
> 25% likely to have been caused by a biomedical research-related accident